Stem Cell Initiative

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wisdom34 said:
Good people of the Catholic faith are also supporting Amendment 2
Click to expand...
They are not in good standing with the Church and for their sake, best think twice about receiving communion.
wisdom34 said:
because they want to support scientists who are seeking cures for serious and deadly illnesses like Muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, and other terrifying illneses.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to suspect that embryonic stem-cell research will find cures for these diseases. There haven’t been any cures from the embryonic stem-cell research that is already being done.
wisdom34 said:
I believe these people support research that supports life.
Click to expand...
How is it respecting life when the embryos used for embryonic stem-cell research are killed? This one isn’t a question of belief- it’s a scientific fact. The embryos are distinct living organisms. In the process of removing the stem cells, they will die.
wisdom34 said:
This amendment supports research under strict guidelines that can help people with serious illnesses.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to suggest that they might help people with serious illnesses.
wisdom34 said:
Cloning is prohibited.
Click to expand...
Read the entire amendment. You will find this is not the case. Cloning is actually safeguarded. Cloning and implantation into a womb is prohibited.
wisdom34 said:
These anti-amendment 2 ads are extremely misleading. It would be unfortunate if such promising life saving research and treatment ends up being curtailed in Missouri
Click to expand...
Those supporting amendment 2 are the ones who are misleading. We are being asked to vote to amend the constitution (that’s more than just passing a law, because it can’t be undone particularly easily- and when amendments are made on a whim like this, it diminishes the meaning of the constitution- which is why I am against other amendments as well- not just this one).

We live in a culture where we are afraid of suffering and death, and do everything we can to pretend it won’t happen. We are all going to die though, and for most of us, it will probably involve a certain degree of suffering. That’s just how life is!
 
Yes there are good catholics supporting amendment 2

Rember, Galileo was a devout Catholic.
He observed Gods universe and noted the Earth goes around the sun

The power in Rome thought they knew Gods universe better
andGalileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as “formally heretical”.
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
Then On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, So it took 359 years to note that men are fallible and Catholic scientists can be right in telling the truth about God’s universe.

So there are good Catholics who believe Amendment 2 will help scientists to find cures and preserve life. It make take some years to see who is right.
 
Faith1960 said:
As many of you know, this subject is very heatedly being debated here in Missouri and the whole country is getting into the fray on various online message boards. I have plenty of information from my church and information I’ve obtained online but that’s apparently not good enough to sway people on the other side of the issue who say that the information I or others opposed to embyronic stem cell research is nothing more than “propaganda from the right wing” or “religious propaganda.” They want information coming from neutral sources that support our side before they’ll even consider the information to be credible.

Among the many issues being debated are that embryos will not be created for research and that only exisiting embryos coming from IVF will be used, and that the word “cloning” is a word being used to deceive when it clearly states that human cloning is and will continue to be prohibited.

Are there any secular, neutral sites out there that I can use to sway these people?
Click to expand...
Hi Faith,
The important thing to emphasize is that none of the information presented against Amendment 2 requires a website or source. This information is basic medical and scientifc knowlege.

Imagine if you said the elbow is a joint. And someone said, no it isn’t! Give me a link! That is just a good indication that their basic knowledge is lacking.

You can “cite” things such as 2+2=4. But 2+2=4 requires cumulative steps of thinking that require knowlege. First the person has to learn to count, then identify numbers and their names, then how to add them and the rules of addition. You can give them a website that says “2+2=4!” but they can deny it for any reason, including bias.

The point being human embryology, organism development and specific, legal observations aren’t things that someone can just read on a website and believe…unless they don’t have the basic skills to think for themselves as the above paragraph shows.

What would be more effective when you are attempting to show others information on this amendment, or any argument where one party lacks the skills for critical reasoning, would be to outline the basics. Don’t just state 2+2=4 over and over again. They don’t have the ability to get to that concept yet. Try teaching them numbers, or rather, try running various names of human development with pictures. Try showing how 2 apples plus 2 apples equals 4 apples, or rather, try showing them pictures of how SCNT created dolly the sheep.
 
wisdom34 said:
Yes there are good catholics supporting amendment 2

Rember, Galileo was a devout Catholic.
He observed Gods universe and noted the Earth goes around the sun

The power in Rome thought they knew Gods universe better
andGalileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as “formally heretical”.
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
Then On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, So it took 359 years to note that men are fallible and Catholic scientists can be right in telling the truth about God’s universe.

So there are good Catholics who believe Amendment 2 will help scientists to find cures and preserve life. It make take some years to see who is right.
Click to expand...
This comparison is intellectually dishonest. Even at best Galileo deserved censor for his actions. Further his condemnation centered around trying to use scripture to defend his position. This is completely unlike the situation at hand.

In the situation at hand we have a simple issue. Morally one cannot support the amendment and call themselves a good catholic. Why is this? Simply put it promotes embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Both of these issues are morally evil acts. The first because it kills a human baby. The second because it objectifies the human person and treat a human as a commodity.

I would argue that any catholic that supports this amendment with their vote would incur a latae sentiae excommunication. And if the law cannot be interpreted as such the Bishop should issue a moto proprio to the same.
 
You ask very good questions faith 1960

Hasikelee’ reply is very misleading and condescending to
those who have well educated,well reasoned, ethical opinions
supporting amendment 2

His posting is an opinion and not
“basic medical and scientific knowledge”

And that becomes obvious when Hasiklee suggests the possibility of Human cloning because of Dolly the Sheep.

Amendment 2 prohibits human cloning. It states

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone
a human being.

If you want a good web site go to

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research
 
wisdom34 said:
You ask very good questions faith 1960

Hasikelee’ reply is very misleading and condescending to
those who have well educated,well reasoned, ethical opinions
supporting amendment 2

His posting is an opinion and not
“basic medical and scientific knowledge”

And that becomes obvious when Hasiklee suggests the possibility of Human cloning because of Dolly the Sheep.

Amendment 2 prohibits human cloning. It states

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone
a human being.

If you want a good web site go to

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research
Click to expand...
The amendment is itself misleading and misdefines cloning. It labels as cloning the process after ANT has already taken place. However, the clinical definition of cloning is very different than the language in the amendment.
 
My comparison to Galilo is appropriate.

1)You indicate that Galileo deserved censor for his actions?
Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, but you are ready to censor Galileo for speaking the truth about the Universe? That already speaks volumes of how opinionated and unscientific your reasoning is.
  1. Men are fallible just like the men who put the devout Catholic,Galileo, on trial claiming to defend Catholic teaching.Galileo was right about our solar system and the men who put him on trial were wrong. It just took many years to figure all that out.
  2. Embryonic stem cell research does not kill a human baby, becuase the embryo will never be implanted and over time ceases to be viable. You can use it for research to potentialy improve or save lives or you can keep it in a freezer until it is no longer viable and discard it. Some will feel it is more ethical to try to improve or save lives.
4)The amendment bans human cloning.
  1. And it seems while you are censoring Galileo you are ready to excommunicate a lot of good people of the Catholic Faith for voting their conscience for amendment 2 . In reality the Catholic church favors persuasion over excommunication. And these type of issues will be debated within the Catholic community as well as outside the Catholic Community for many years.
 
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone
a human being

4)The amendment bans human cloning.
Click to expand...
The Center for Genetic and Society distinguishes "between two types of human cloning", which includes reproductive and therapeutic/research**.**
genetics-and-society.org/technologies/cloning/

The Amendment defines “cloning” and DOES NOT ban human cloning. It bans cloning for the purpose of reproduciton AKA reproductive cloning. It does not ban cloning for therapeutic purposes AKA therapeutic cloning. Amendment 2 Subdivision 6(2)
“Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus
Click to expand...
or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human femail by a spem of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

The Amendment states in black and white that human embryonic stem cell rearch includes stem cells from therapetuic cloning, SCNT.
6(5) “Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer
Click to expand...
. For purposes of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials. The **NIH **states “SCNT is the scientific term for cloning”.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/glossary.asp
 
wisdom34 said:
Embryonic stem cell research does not kill a human baby, becuase the embryo will never be implanted and over time ceases to be viable. You can use it for research to potentialy improve or save lives or you can keep it in a freezer until it is no longer viable and discard it. Some will feel it is more ethical to try to improve or save lives.
Click to expand...
Here you touch upon the central issue in amendment 2. First, is the preimplantation embryo a new human life? The scientific answer here is certainly YES. If you wish to disagree, I would direct you to the first pages of any standard embryology textbook.

The second question is really at the heart of the matter. Is the preimplantation a human person, with all of the rights and deserving of all of the moral respect as a fully developed human life?

To address the statement made by wisdom above, what is the moral and ethical justification of asserting that viability defines whether a human life is a human person? Given enough time, all of us will cease to be viable (ie we will all die at some point). Why don’t we shoot all persons over the age of 70 in the head so that we can harvest their organs for transplantation? Look at all the good we can do. After all, they are going to die soon anyway.
wisdom34 said:
In reality the Catholic church favors persuasion over excommunication. And these type of issues will be debated within the Catholic community as well as outside the Catholic Community for many years.
Click to expand...
Precisely why it is a very bad idea to enshrine the right to clone into a state’s constitution, thereby ending the debate. If passed, amendment 2 would make it unconstitutional to introduce any legislative effort to address the moral and ethical concerns related to embryonic stem cell research. Any effort to continue discussion by the state government would be prohibited.
 
wisdom34 said:
My comparison to Galilo is appropriate.

1)You indicate that Galileo deserved censor for his actions?
Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, but you are ready to censor Galileo for speaking the truth about the Universe? That already speaks volumes of how opinionated and unscientific your reasoning is.
  1. Men are fallible just like the men who put the devout Catholic,Galileo, on trial claiming to defend Catholic teaching.Galileo was right about our solar system and the men who put him on trial were wrong. It just took many years to figure all that out.
  2. Embryonic stem cell research does not kill a human baby, becuase the embryo will never be implanted and over time ceases to be viable. You can use it for research to potentialy improve or save lives or you can keep it in a freezer until it is no longer viable and discard it. Some will feel it is more ethical to try to improve or save lives.
4)The amendment bans human cloning.
  1. And it seems while you are censoring Galileo you are ready to excommunicate a lot of good people of the Catholic Faith for voting their conscience for amendment 2 . In reality the Catholic church favors persuasion over excommunication. And these type of issues will be debated within the Catholic community as well as outside the Catholic Community for many years.
Click to expand...
Your understanding of the trial of Galileo is juvenile at best. But it is not the point of this thread and we don’t need to get distracted.

As astegallrnc & Dr Paul have both expressed this Amendment uses dishonest language to posit cloning as a right and also to posit embryonic stem cell research as a necessity and/or right. Your statement in number 3 is astounding. No catholic would ever make that claim as we know that life begins at conception and is not contingent upon implantation or any other stage of development. As Dr. Phil rightly stated in every embryology textbook it states the definition of the beginning of human life in the first page if not the first chapter. This scientific fact that life begins at conception also necessitates the moral quality of the new human. As an ethicist it is known that rights and dignity are derived from existence. So, the moment that this new human exists it has all the rights and dignity of a human person. To, do a procedure on such a person that directly causes its death is intrinsically immoral. This is an unchangeable reality as it stems from the natural moral law and not some made up idea or even biblically founded principle.
 
wisdom34 said:
Yes there are good catholics supporting amendment 2

Rember, Galileo was a devout Catholic.
He observed Gods universe and noted the Earth goes around the sun
Click to expand...
Gallileo didn’t try to destroy human life. And, no, there are no “good Catholics” supporting amendment 2. For the sake of their souls, those that do should not receive communion until their view has changed.
 
wisdom34 said:
Amendment 2 prohibits human cloning. It states

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone
a human being.
Click to expand...
Wisdom34,

I suggest you see 2tricky.org

The language of the ballot is NOT the full language of the Amendment which will become law if passed. The amendment bans reproductive cloning–that is, cloning a human embryo and then implanting it inside a woman’s uterus so that it can be born.

What it MANDATES STATE FUNDING FOR is “somatic cell nuclear transfer”–as hasikelee said, the same process by which Dolly the Sheep was created. Embryos will be cloned, and then destroyed through scientific research.
"The ballot summary [of Amendment 2] will tend to mislead those who are philosophically opposed to all nuclear transfer… nuclear transfer is cloning.
— Judge James Smart, Missouri Court of Appeals
Click to expand...
I truly ask you to prayerfully consider your vote on Amendment 2–there really is only one ethical position for any Catholic to take on this, and that is opposition.
 
E-mail every Missouirian you know. Tell them to make a sign for the back window of their car that says either:
No on 2 Redefined Cloning is Still Cloning nocloning.org or
No on 2 Public Taxes, Phony Cloning Ban
 
This might be helpful–this is from the actual ballot language:

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being. Basically this says it’s only cloning if the created embryos are implanted, creating the embryos itself is not cloning–does this make any sense?

And…(17) “Valuable consideration” means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor. Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law. They claim that no one, for “valuable consideration” i.e. payment can donate eggs. Yet, it’s perfectly OK to go to a clinic and get paid to donate eggs, which are in turn sent to these researches.

Or…7. The provisions of this section and of all state and local laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies and cures. No state or local law, regulation, rule, charter, ordinance, or other governmental action shall (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by this section to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures. Local gov’ts and the state legislature have no say in the matter.

All of this is from sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp Project Vote Smart
 
wisdom34 said:
Good people of the Catholic faith are also supporting Amendment 2 because they want to support scientists who are seeking cures for serious and deadly illnesses
Click to expand...
There is no society on earth that has not had, as one of its most horror-inducing myths, that of vampirism. In the West, the myth is personified in the character of Dracula. Dracula consumed the substance of innocents, killing them in the process, in order to prolong his own life and strength. Amendment 2 is not only about “research”. The clinics will not only “study” human stem cells taken from a living human embryo, they will be permitted to use them in formulating therapeutic substances that will be consumed by others in an effort to prolong their lives, or the quality thereof. There is no limitation on what use they may make of the cells of these destroyed humans, and no limitation on the multiplication thereof. Nerve cell replacement? Yes. Lip balm? Yes. Hand lotion? Yes, if they can brew up enough of them, like so much yeast in a brewery, to make it profitable. Human diet supplements? Yes. Can they clone? Yes, so long as they do not implant the human embryos in a human womb. (No limitation on artificial wombs, though, or the wombs of animals genetically engineered to accept them. Human insulin is produced right now in genetically altered animals, so it’s not inconceivable) Theoretically, they could grow a “spare parts person” who is not recognized as a legal person, and there is no possibility whatever that someone will fail to try to create artificial wombs to “get them a little further along.”) Can they at least attempt to cross species; human and animal? Yes, and you know someone will try. And no, the legislature will not be able to pass laws limiting any of those things.

Amendment 2 is also a “blank check”; one of the more bizarre aspects of it. The legislature cannot cut off funding the research or the processing of human products. It cannot fail to fund it. Theoretically, it could consume the entire state budget and mandate additional taxation. It would “overrule” the Hancock Amendment that requires a vote of the people for a tax increase. Read it. It preempts all other laws that are contrary to it, and that would include Hancock. Want to trust the interpretation of Amendment 2 to the courts that gave us Roe vs. Wade?

So what’s it about? Fetal stem cells have cured no one of anything. Merck, Eli Lily, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer are not spending billions on this. Why should the state of Missouri do it when those who, supposedly could make fortunes off of it, and whose business it is to come up with “cures” don’t? Because it’s about two things actually. First, it is about the money that will flow like a river into the clinics, universities and research hospitals that will batten on unlimited funds. Second, it will make it virtually impossible for many or most (they hope) to oppose other Culture of Death arguments. “You use ‘pre-life tissue’ in your arthritis medicine (they will argue) How can you say a woman should not remove ‘pre-life tissue’ from her body.” And the moral corruption it engenders if, indeed, it is ever found useful for even lip balm, will coarsen and deaden our consciences to the entire panoply of the program of the Culture of Death.
(continued)
 
Shakespeare was a wise man. He pierced to the heart of this in “Macbeth”. Macbeth considered momentarily whether he should cease his murderousness or continue in it. Feeling himself unable to repent due to the burden of crime he had already committed, he said “I am so steeped in gore, t’were more difficult to return than to go o’er.” And so he continued finding more reasons to murder, and more murders to commit. And what did Shakespeare put his finger on in that? Precisely the unforgivable “Sin against the Holy Spirit”; the continued refusal to accept the grace necessary for repentance. And, will Missourians who, a few years from now, find themselves “so steeped in gore”, that they will find it more difficult to “return than to go o’er?” It is hard to know, but we should worry greatly. We teach children not to abuse animals, precisely to prevent that creeping corruption of soul that ultimately leads to ultimate horrors. It, like recoiling from the very notion of vampirism, is lodged in the human mind and soul. But it can be removed in many by deadening that innate sense of horror; that sense of “wrongness”. When we excuse the consumption of other humans because it “might” lead to cures of nerve tissue, we deaden ourselves to consuming them for lip balm or even diet supplements. (Consumption is consumption, whether by mouth or by needle.) And when we deaden our consciences concerning the consumption of microscopic cells in a petri dish, then won’t we think it is okay to “tease them along a bit” to form human “tissue” with a beating heart that one might remove from a recognizable fetus for transplant, in an effort to give an old man like myself a few more years than God has decreed for me? And if we kill and kill and kill enough, will we manage thereby to live forever? No, but perhaps, like Dracula, we will aspire to it, and not care how we do it.

No, good people of the Catholic faith, who actually are faithful to it, or even to simple humanity, and who know what Amendment 2 really is, despite all the deception that begins in the very first paragraph of it; within the title itself, will not support it, though many will be fooled. And yes, voting for it is the very first step in becoming “so steeped in gore”, as one day those who vote for it will not be able to deny to themselves that they were instrumental in legalizing, no, mandating, the consumption of human beings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top